SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 174129. July 5, 2010.]

HONESTO V. FERRER, JR., and ROMEO E. ESPERA , petitioners,

vs. MAYOR SULPICIO S. ROCO, JR., in his capacity as Mayor
of Naga City, Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of
Naga, and PEÑAFRANCIA MEMORIAL PARK CORPORATION ,
respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

At bench is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

filed by petitioners Honesto V. Ferrer, Jr. and Romeo E. Espera against
respondents Mayor Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr., in his capacity as mayor of Naga
City; the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Naga; and Peñafrancia
Memorial Park Corporation or "PMPC" (formerly ARE Square Realty
Development Corporation).
The petition challenges (1) the April 21, 2006 Decision of the Court of
Appeals 1 affirming in toto the April 17, 2001 Order 2 of the Regional Trial
Court, Naga City, Branch 24; and (2) its August 9, 2006 Resolution 3 denying
the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners.
THE RELEVANT ANTECEDENTS:
Wenceslao D. San Andres, Jose A. Ocampo, Crisensana M. Vargas,
Honesto V. Ferrer, Jr., Alfonso N. Peralta, Otilla C. Sierra, Jovito A. delos
Santos, William Tan, Felipe Sese, and Romeo E. Espera filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief and/or Injunction with prayer for Temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) 4 questioning Resolution No. 2000-263, 5 Resolution No. 2000-
3 5 4 6 and Ordinance No. 2000-059 7 issued by the respondents, Mayor
Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr. and the members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Naga City. The said resolutions and ordinance read:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-263

WHEREAS, received by the Sanggunian for appropriate action

was the application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty
Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational
Clearance (PALC) for a First Class Memorial Park located at Barangay
Balatas, City of Naga; ECTHIA

WHEREAS, the City Planning & Development Office evaluated

and reviewed the documents submitted by Mr. Robert L. Obiedo for the
purpose and found that the substantial requirements have been
complied with;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx

BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to approve the

application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square Realty Development
Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational Clearance (PALC)
for a First Class Memorial Park located at Barangay Balatas, City of
Naga.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-354

WHEREAS, received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod for

consideration was the letter dated September 4, 2000 of Mr. Robert L.
Obiedo through his official representative Mrs. Alice C. Enojado of the
ARE Square Realty Development Corporation applying for a
Development Permit (DP) for their proposed Eternal Gardens Memorial
Park with a total area of 60, 781 sq. m. located at Barangay Balatas,
this city;

WHEREAS, in the Technical Evaluation Report dated October 2,

2000, the City Planning & Development Officer manifested that after
evaluation and review of the submitted documents they found that the
applicant has substantially complied with the requirements;

xxx xxx xxx

BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, to approve the

application for Development Permit (DP) of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of the
ARE Square Realty Development Corporation to develop the Eternal
Gardens Memorial Park located at Barangay Balatas, this city, subject
to the following conditions and compliance of all existing laws,
ordinances, rules and regulations and further favorably endorsing the
same to the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB) for
appropriate action, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx [Emphasis supplied]

ORDINANCE NO. 2000-059

Be it ordained by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of

Naga, that: EACIcH

SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 401, s. 1972, entitled: "An Ordinance

Regulating the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Private
Memorial Park-Type Cemetery or Burial Ground within the Jurisdiction
of Naga City, and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof"; specifically
sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (c) under Section 3 and sub-paragraph
(a) under Section 5 thereof, on the minimum area of the proposed
cemetery and Mayor's Permit and License Fees, respectively, is hereby
amended, now to read follows:

'SECTION 3. the operation and maintenance of the

private memorial park-type cemetery established pursuant to
this Ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of the cemetery
law and/or other pertinent laws as well as rules and regulations
promulgated or as may be promulgated by the Municipal Board,
subject further to the following conditions:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx

(c) No application for the establishment of a private

cemetery shall be considered:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) if the proposed private cemetery site is less than

five (5) hectares;

xxx xxx xxx'

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss 8 for lack of jurisdiction. Finding

the motion to be well-taken, the RTC dismissed the petition in an order dated
April 17, 2001. 9 The RTC found that the prayer of petitioners was premature
as the questioned resolutions and ordinance were merely promulgated to
pave the way for the endorsement of the application of the private
respondent to the HLURB. It recognized that the HLURB is the entity which
will decide whether the application of the private respondent will be granted
or not.
Apparently not in conformity with the order of dismissal, the petitioners
appealed to the Court of Appeals premised on the following errors —
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HLURB HAS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE. CTSDAI

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING APPELLANTS' PRAYER FOR

TRO AND OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION." 10

As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the April 17,
2001 Order of the RTC. 11 Pertinently, the Court of Appeals wrote:
"Indeed, the doctrine of administrative remedies requires that
resort be first made to the administrative authorities in cases falling
under their jurisdiction to allow them to carry out their functions and
discharge their liabilities within the specialized areas of their
competence. This is because the administrative agency concerned is in
the best position to correct any previous error committed in its forum.
Clearly, the filing of the petition for declaratory relief with the trial
court had no basis, as there can be no issue ripe for judicial
determination when the matter is within the primary jurisdiction of an
administrative agency, the HLURB.
Consequently, inasmuch as the filing of the petition below was
premature, appellant's application for temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, which is merely ancillary to the
petition, has no leg to stand on."

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the

Court of Appeals in its August 9, 2006 Resolution. 12
Hence, this Petition (filed by Honesto V. Ferrer and Romeo E. Espera
only) 13 wherein the following arguments have been presented —
"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FILED WITH THE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 TRIAL COURT AS PREMATURE AND HAVING NO BASIS, ON THE
PRETEXT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN IS NOT YET RIPE
FOR ADJUDICATION.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE ON THE EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE RESORT TO COURTS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT

RECONSIDERING ITS DECISION." 14

On June 23, 2008, after the submission of the separate comments by

the private respondent PMC 15 and the public respondents, 16 and of the
reply 17 by the petitioners, the petition was given due course and the parties
were directed to submit their respective memoranda. 18 DEIHAa

After a thorough study of the respective positions of the parties on the

issue at hand, the Court has reached the conclusion that the petition lacks
merit.
Declaratory relief is defined as an action by any person interested in a
deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or
resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from
the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute, and for a
declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. The only issue that may be
raised in such a petition is the question of construction or validity of the
provisions in an instrument or statute.
It is settled that the requisites of an action for declaratory relief are: 1]
the subject matter of the controversy must be a deed, will, contract or other
written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance; 2]
the terms of said documents and the validity thereof are doubtful and
require judicial construction; 3] there must have been no breach of the
documents in question; 4] there must be an actual justiciable controversy or
the "ripening seeds" of one between persons whose interests are adverse; 5]
the issue must be ripe for judicial determination; and 6] adequate
relief is not available through other means or other forms of action
or proceeding. 19 [emphasis supplied]
In this case, the issue raised by petitioners is clearly not yet ripe for
judicial determination. Nowhere in the assailed resolutions and ordinance
does it show that the public respondents acted on private respondent's
application with finality. What appears therefrom is that the application of
private respondent for development permit has been endorsed to the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) for appropriate action, the
latter being the sole regulatory body for housing and land development.
Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, courts cannot
or will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand
the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to
determine technical and intricate matters of fact. In other words, if a case is
such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized training and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 knowledge of an administrative body, relief must first be obtained in an
administrative proceeding before resort to the courts is had even if the
matter may well be within their proper jurisdiction. 20
WHEREFORE, the April 21, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals and
its August 9, 2006 Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED. EHSITc

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro * and Abad, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

*Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per raffle

dated June 22, 2009.

1.Rollo , pp. 35-43.

2.Id. at 127-129.

3.Id. at 45-46.
4.Id. at 47-58.
5.Resolution Approving the Application of Mr. Robert L. Obiedo of ARE Square
Realty Development Corporation for Preliminary Approval for Locational
Clearance (PALC) for a First Class Memorial Park located at Barangay
Balagtas, City of Naga; Id. at 60-61.
6.Resolution Approving the Application for Development Permit (DP) of Mr. Robert
L. Obiedo of the ARE Square Realty Development Corporation to develop the
Eternal Gardens Memorial Park located at Barangay Balagtas, this city,
subject to certain conditions, and compliance of all existing Laws,
Ordinances, Rules and Regulations and further favorably Endorsing the same
to the Housing Land Use and Regulatory Board (HLURB) for appropriate
action; Id. at 62-63.
7.An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 401, S. 1972, entitled: "An Ordiannce
Regulating the Establishment, Maintenance and Operation of Private
Memorial Park-Type Cemetery or Burial Ground within the jurisdiction of Naga
City, and Providing Penalties for Violation thereof", specifically subparagraph
(2) of paragraph (c) under Section 3 and subparagraph (A) under Section 5
thereof on the Minimum Area of the Proposed Cemetery and Mayor's Permit
and License Fees, respectively; Id. at 64-65.
8.Id. at 66-68.

9.Id. at 127-129.
10.Id. at 146.

11.Id. at 35-43.
12.Id. at 45-46.

13.Id. at 9; Appellants Wenceslao D. San Andres, Jose A. Ocampo, Cresensana M.

Vargas, Alfonso N. Peralta, Otilla C. Sierra, Jovito A. Delos Santos, William
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Tan and Felipe Sese are not included as petitioners due to their failure to
signify their interest in pursuing the case with the Supreme Court or that
their present whereabouts cannot be located.
14.Id. at 24.

15.Id. at 181-195.
16.Id. at 215-221.

17.Id. at 227-231.
18.Id. at 233.
19.Almeda v. Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 150806, January 28,
2008, 542 SCRA 470.
20.Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 148106,
July 17, 2006, 495 SCRA 301.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com